Believers, how does your god talk to you?

Originally posted by vistesd
Okay. Point well-taken on my sloppy expression... For the moment, for lack of a better phrase just now, I'll say "spiritual" trust/faith.

I'll be happy to be given a better way of putting it... (no tongue in cheek there at all.)

I wasn't getting at any perceived sloppiness in your expression. Rather, I was getting at the question of trust (yes, even in a spiritual setting).

I would say that it wasn't idolatory for the Jews to trust their Prophets who spoke about G-d; and it wasn't idolatory for Christians to trust the Apostles and their bishops.

Originally posted by vistesd

But are you not "dogmatizing" your position that there is no one true religion that points to one true God? Could your position also be considered adulterous, especially in light of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions? In other words, is the God of the Bible involved in such idolatry you speak of as He tells the Israelites to desist from worshiping other God's, and in fact, seems to be a sticking point for the God of the Bible?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I wasn't getting at any perceived sloppiness in your expression. Rather, I was getting at the question of trust (yes, even in a spiritual setting).

I would say that it wasn't idolatory for the Jews to trust their Prophets who spoke about G-d; and it wasn't idolatory for Christians to trust the Apostles and their bishops.

Hmmm. I think it is idolatrous to elevate the sayings of the prophets/apostles to divine status is at least in danger of moving toward idolatry. I choose to trust a certain statement; I base how I live my life on it; it becomes “a lamp to guide my feet,” so to speak. So far, so good.

Then I say, “This is without doubt God speaking, just these words, just so, and they are therefore beyond question for anyone.” Now I think I’ve taken another step.

Then I say, “Anything that I find that contradicts how I/we understand these words is wrong.” Another step.

“I put my trust for salvation in the written record of these voices.” Another step?

You see, ultimately, it is our understanding and interpretation of these sayings that, when dogmatized, I think becomes idolatrous. Jewish exegesis (midrash) is aimed specifically at avoiding that.

For me, the polar opposites here are acknowledgement of the mystery on the one hand, and a kind of dogmatized pseudo-certainty on the other. Sometimes I think that the idolization of images, sayings, etc. is an attempt to escape our continuing hermeneutical responsibility.

Again, I think Rav Kook stated it wonderfully, and that is how I see it. So you can interpret the rest of what I say through him (or through Pseudo-Dionysus, say).

What do you see as the difference between ikon and idol? Can one trust that an icon symbolically represents an aspect of reality, without elevating it to the reality itself, or seeing it as a complete and exclusive embodiment of the whole truth?

Originally posted by whodey
But are you not "dogmatizing" your position that there is no one true religion that points to one true God? Could your position also be considered adulterous, especially in light of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions? In other words, is the God of the Bible involved in such idolatry you speak of as He tells the Israelites to desist from worshiping other God's, and in fact, seems to be a sticking point for the God of the Bible?

Once again, I am not a biblical literalist of any kind, and therefore when I speak about the texts I do not speak in terms of “God said.” Even if I accepted a kind of anthropomorphic God, I would not assume that (1) the words attributed by human writers were his/hers; nor (2) that it was possible to read such words without my own (or anyone’s) fallible interpretation.

Re the dogmatic nature of my own position—

No. Although any of us can be subject to that: eternal vigilance, etc., etc. I am stating—and arguing—my view and understanding. It might be wrong. If someone else becomes convinced that I am right, they need to do so on the basis of the arguments themselves, using their own minds, researching elsewhere. If they are convinced that I am wrong, that’s okay. Maybe I will be convinced that I am wrong—it has happened before, and it would be intellectually dishonest for me, according to my own mind, to assert that I might not be.

And I certainly never say such things as someone’s salvation depends on seeing things my way.

This from the online Merriam-Webster dictionary:

1 : characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively as if they were facts. (My bold.)

When I claim that there is ultimately one totality—whether called Brahman or Ein Sof or the Tao or God—I am stating my view. I do not know if that is a fact, but to me it is the most logical view. Take that as a caveat for everything I argue...

Originally posted by vistesd
What do you see as the difference between ikon and idol? Can one trust that an icon symbolically represents an aspect of reality, without elevating it to the reality itself, or seeing it as a complete and exclusive embodiment of the whole truth?[/b]

If I recall, icons as well as idols were fobidden in Mosaic times. After all, they are very similar if not the same to many during that time. No artisitic representations were allowed of God so as not to diminish his totality nor make them in and of themselves an object of worship over God himself. However, I am not sure you can say the same for the written word. Then again if one attempts to follow the written words of God without fellowship with that God I think it could be deemed idolatrous.

Consider this verse below.

Deuteronomy 6:5 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I cammanded thee this day, shall be in thine heart. And thou shalt teach them diligently to thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou rise up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon thy posts and thy house, and on thy gate.

Taking this verse literally one might suppose that they placed these words ahead of their God by constantly talking about them and writing them where they would always be seen, however, I would say that these words are what their God is all about. I am uncertain how one would not take them literally. It seems self evident what is attempting to be conveyed here. It is also repeated many times throughout the Bible so as to underline its importance.

You could say that the law of love is how I interpret who and what God is. You might even say that because I "dogmatize" this law that it is a source of idolatry, I don't know. However, when I study the teachings of Christ, this truth becomes apparent to me. You may call it idolotry, but I call it an absolute truth. This became apparent to me when the religious leaders "idololized" the Mosaic law and insisted on Christ not healing on the Sabbath. In fact, they accused him of breaking the Sabbath because he healed on that day. Jesus then retorted that the Sabbath was made for man and not the other way around. If I recall correctly, he then questioned them as to whether or not they would pull their beast of burden out of a pit if it fell down on the Sabbath in order to save it.

For me love is the unmistakable mark of our Creator. Logically, if we were created, we would then have attributes of our Creator much like when we create something it speaks volumes about ourselves. It says what is important to us in terms of our needs and desires and as well as the level of our intellect. Therefore, I reject the notion that God is unknowable in this regard or that he is not a being unto himself so that a relationship with him is not possible. We are a triune being yet distinctly an independent being so it stands to reason that our Creator would be as well. After all, the Bible says we were made in his image and this is how I interpret this saying.

When Christ talked about loving him, however, he simply said to keep his commandments much like a loving husband wanting to please his wife. Doing so may be difficult at times but NEVER burdonsome. So one could say that the focus should be pleasing your Lord because you love him verses keeping the letter of the law, however, without the law how do you know how to please your Lord? I would say that it boils down to having the love of God in your heart. As long as you do, you will keep the commandments without trying. I have witnessed people who have attempted to keep the letter of the law of God, such as the religious leaders in Jesus' day, without the love of God in their hearts verses those who try to keep the law but in a spirit of love. The difference is like night and day.

Therefore, religions for me that distance man from God devoid of a relationship with him of some kind seem very odd to me. I have not seen any religion other than Christianity that meets this criteria. For me, Christianity in a nut shell is all about relationship not just with your God but with your fellow man as well.

Originally posted by whodey
If I recall, icons as well as idols were fobidden in Mosaic times. After all, they are very similar if not the same to many during that time. No artisitic representations were allowed of God so as not to diminish his totality nor make them in and of themselves an object of worship over God himself. However, I am not sure you can say the same for the writte ...[text shortened]... t shell is all about relationship not just with your God but with your fellow man as well.

You could say that the law of love is how I interpret who and what God is.

This is not a dogmatic statement. This is how you understand it; you find confirmation of this understanding via your understanding of the Jesus as the Christ, reflecting on the gospel stories, etc. You then do your best to actualize this understanding in terms of how you live your life...

A non-dualistic Sufi would likely agree with the statement from 1st John that “God is agape.” And follow a similar line of reflection and actualization.

I also arrive at certain understandings, from various sources, including nature and follow a similar line of reflection and attempted actualization. I may argue for the reasonableness of my understanding, but I never attribute to it certainty. I do not argue that I can know absolute truth in the spiritual realm.

The key word in all this, for me, is that word “understand,” (or your phrase: “how I interpret...” ). I have no problem with any of that. However, when someone says, “Here is my understanding—and everyone else must understand it this way, or else...,” then I think that understanding is what has been (or at least is in danger of being) idolized. Again, I agree with Rav Kook.

You are right about icons in Judaism (and in Islam as well). Historically, the argument for the allowance of icons in Christianity rests mainly on the incarnation. Also, ikon is the Greek word for image—as in human beings being in the image of God.

Originally posted by vistesd
You are right about icons in Judaism (and in Islam as well). Historically, the argument for the allowance of icons in Christianity rests mainly on the incarnation. Also, ikon is the Greek word for image—as in human beings being in the image of God.[/b]

I do not see Christ as being an icon much like I do not see writing down the commandments of love so it can be seen and constantly talking about the law of love as they did in Deuteronomy as being an icon. I see Christ as God's word come to life just as you would read it posted throughout your house during Mosaic times. All Christ did was go around and quote scripture just as if it were posted throughout your house as it was commanded the Israelite people. You could say both were visual in terms of seeing Christ and reading his law. Both could be considered one in the same. After all, Christ never said he came on his own authority or that he was interpreting God's law by himself, rather, he was God's law come to life in a more clear and understandable form. I am sure you would disagree and compare Christs interpretations to our own skewed reasoning, however, I see him as divinity as where you see him as mortal.

Originally posted by whodey
I do not see Christ as being an icon much like I do not see writing down the commandments of love so it can be seen and constantly talking about the law of love as they did in Deuteronomy as being an icon. I see Christ as God's word come to life just as you would read it posted throughout your house during Mosaic times. All Christ did was go around and quot s to our own skewed reasoning, however, I see him as divinity as where you see him as mortal.

Actually, I might see Jesus, as the Christ, being a real ikon of the logos tou theou, who realized his true nature as such. And the gospel message being, in part, that we too are such ikons, but we fail to realize that; this is probably a fair summary of the Greek Orthodox understanding of “the fall”—whether one takes that as a one-time event, or a story about our existential state. (I really am convinced that there is more than one theological and soteriological stream in the NT; at least thus far I am.)

However, I do not take ho theos (literally, the/this God; the definite article is very often used in the Greek NT) as a being, but as the ground and source and whole of being. It is the illusion of the (conscious) wave to think that it is separate from the ocean from which it arises, that its logos can be separated from the logos of the whole. And it is this illusion that causes the “missing of the mark” (hamartia: failure, error, sin—literally to “miss the mark,” with or without any moral culpability).

Now, lucifershammer may say than I am being too Buddhist here, or that my effort to overlay Buddhist concepts onto the Christic message itself results in an illusion (perhaps he would use stronger language). He might be right. I am still working on it, and really cannot argue that position any further at this point. (I don't mean to "leave you in the lurch" with that, I really cannot expand on that further because I'm still thinking it out.)

Originally posted by vistesd
Hmmm. I think it is idolatrous to elevate the sayings of the prophets/apostles to divine status is at least in danger of moving toward idolatry. I choose to trust a certain statement; I base how I live my life on it; it becomes “a lamp to guide my feet,” so to speak. So far, so good.

Then I say, “This is without doubt God speaking, just these words, ...[text shortened]... t to the reality itself, or seeing it as a complete and exclusive embodiment of the whole truth?

When you look at modern society and times what are the "golden calfs" that you see?

Originally posted by kirksey957
When you look at modern society and times what are the "golden calfs" that you see?

Wow—there are so many. Most anything can become one, though I don’t think anything I’d list—like money, privilege, nation, clan...—are so in themselves. I suspect that the “golden calf” syndrome comes from a sense of existential insecurity.

Frankly, my biggest one was always the need for approval by others: family, church, colleagues, etc. Some authority to assure me that I am “getting it right.” One problem with that , of course, is that as one’s life-horizon expands, there are so many putative authorities—one saying such and such, the other saying so and so. Sooner or later, one has to realize that a fundamental self-authority is inescapable I think: even if one says, “(This or that) God—or text or church or whatever—is my authority”—I might ask, “On what authority did you make that decision?” That’s why I say that faith is never riskless...

Originally posted by vistesd
Actually, I might see Jesus, as the Christ, being a real ikon of the logos tou theou, who realized his true nature as such. And the gospel message being, in part, that we too are such ikons, but we fail to realize that; this is probably a fair summary of the Greek Orthodox understanding of “the fall”—whether one takes that as a o ...[text shortened]... lurch" with that, I really cannot expand on that further because I'm still thinking it out.)

"This ignorance of the Father brought about terror and fear. And terror became dense like a fog, that no one was able to see. Because of this, error became strong. But it worked on its hylic substance vainly, because it did not know the truth. It was in a fashioned form while it was preparing, in power and in beauty, the equivalent of truth. This then, was not a humiliation for him, that illimitable, inconceivable one. For they were as nothing, this terror and this forgetfulness and this figure of falsehood, whereas this established truth is unchanging, unperturbed and completely beautiful. "
- - -excerpted from the Gospel of Truth written by Valentinus 1900 years ago.

Originally posted by frogstomp
"This ignorance of the Father brought about terror and fear. And terror became dense like a fog, that no one was able to see. Because of this, error became strong. But it worked on its hylic substance vainly, because it did not know the truth. It was in a fashioned form while it was preparing, in power and in beauty, the equivalent of truth. This then, was ...[text shortened]... utiful. "
- - -excerpted from the Gospel of Truth written by Valentinus 1900 years ago.

In a sense, perhaps we keep insisting on the illusion. But in the illusion of a separate, non-transient existence (“the wave separate from the ocean” ), ironically, is the root of existential insecurity (the “terror and fear” )—which leads us, perversely, to clutch at it even more?

Originally posted by vistesd
In a sense, perhaps we keep insisting on the illusion. But in the illusion of a separate, non-transient existence (“the wave separate from the ocean” ), ironically, is the root of existential insecurity (the “terror and fear” )—which leads us, perversely, to clutch at it even more?

Alas, my friend, I think it's so.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Alas, my friend, I think it's so.

Well, I'm going to go outside now, sit on the front porch, and read the GoT... (last time was when you put it on here)

Originally posted by vistesd
Wow—there are so many. Most anything can become one, though I don’t think anything I’d list—like money, privilege, nation, clan...—are so in themselves. I suspect that the “golden calf” syndrome comes from a sense of existential insecurity.

Frankly, my biggest one was always the need for approval by others: family, church, colleagues, etc. Some auth ...[text shortened]... On what authority did you make that decision?” That’s why I say that faith is never riskless...

There was a play some time ago and I wish I could remember the name of it. Basically, it was a reinterpretation of Moses and the Golden Calf except that the "golden calf" was breast implants. So I am guessing the idolatry was the need for image making and "perfection."